Peter Eisentraut <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> It's too bad that gcc doesn't have a
>> -Wno-snarkiness-about-system-headers-thank-you switch.

> It does have a switch to *add* snarkiness about system headers, but does 
> not do it by default.

> The problem in this case is that an uncast null pointer constant is not 
> always a sufficient sentinel for variadic functions, as explained here: 
> <>.

Sure, but on a machine where it actually matters (ie one where int and
pointer are of different sizes), I'd expect NULL to be #define'd as 
"((void *) 0)" not just "0".  You should *not* have to inform the
machine that NULL is a pointer.

                        regards, tom lane

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster

Reply via email to